Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[Pheonixops]

Be very thankful your side does not have you arguing for it before courts.

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Where did they specify that? They had cannons in those days right? Did it state they "had the right to bear arms, except for cannons"? Did they state that they had to approve of the "arms"?

Why? What was incorrect in my post?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your analysis is wrong. Read Heller in its entirety. You will find that it affirms the right of legislatures and courts to impose reasonable standards and regulations.

You are not going to get a mountable Recoiless Rifle or a TOW missile system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And since you extremist righties won't look it up, here you go:

Washington's First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790 . . . the actual quote: "A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

 

[Pheonixops]

Food for thought:
" Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

deterring tyrannical government;[34]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"."

"Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens"

"On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9thIDdoc]

And since you extremist righties won't look it up, here you go:

Washington's First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790 . . . the actual quote: "A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

And maybe both quotes are from diferent times and places.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you can find a source, I will be glad to check it for you.

But as of now, your quote is wrong.

 

[Pheonixops]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

I was concentrating on the line before the one regarding "government".

 

[Katzndogz]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

And we wonder why you continue to assume that the military would back the government instead of the people.

 

[sfcalifornia]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

 

[nitroz]

Why did America's Founding Fathers institute the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Because America was not the strongest nation around back then, and we used all the help we could get, including militias, and people with their own weapons.

I think it's obvious that they never knew how weapons would evolve or what factors would come into play over time, which is why this conflict is going on now.


I think the answer is not to take away the right, or to let it fly. But to add regulation that helps compliment today's situation. It does not infringe on rights, and it keeps guns out of the wrong hands/mitigates crime. (We will never overcome the issue)

 

[ABikerSailor]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

You know, I spent part of my childhood with my Uncle Bill and Aunt Sandy after my mother died.

During that time, I didn't know what store bought meat was, because we all hunted, raised chickens and slaughtered a cow every year.

Bill had probably 40 guns in his house, either hanging in racks on the walls, or put away in drawers or other places.

NONE of them were assault rifles, all were bolt action. Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle to hunt or defend your home with?

The quick answer is, you don't.

 

[eflatminor]

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

Not trying for a 'gotcha' here, I'd really like to know your thoughts. So, please, tell us exactly WHAT firearm characteristics should constitute a banned "military style weapon" and more importantly, WHY you think the restriction of those characteristics will have any impact whatsoever on crazy people and criminals that use a firearm in the course their crimes.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

It's interesting that the 2nd amendment clearly states why the FF's included the 2nd amendment and yet the poll did not include that as an option. Do I detect something of an agenda?

So, as clearly stated by the Founding Fathers for anyone who a) bothers to actually read the amendment and b) doesn't ignore what they don't like in it, it was created in order to guarantee the ability of the individual state to maintain a well-regulated militia. Which means, of course, that while the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, it can be regulated.

You misread the Second Amendment.

It goes as follows:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Please note the commas.

In other words, A well regulated militia...being necessary to the security of a free state...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed.

Or,

A well regulated militia -- being necessary to the security of a free state -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- shall not be infringed.

First, neither the well regulated militia, nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Second, a "well regulated militia" does not equal regulation of arms. The militia is regulated, not the arms.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The Founding Fathers did not institute the right to bear arms.

Right to bear arms is inalienable, and the Founders only recognized that such a right shall not be infringed upon.

It is a huge difference.

If they recognized that such a right shall not be infringed upon, they instituted the right in the Constitution. If it wasn't in the Constitution, we would not possess that right as a matter of Constitutional law. If it wasn't for the Constitution, the government wouldn't give a shit what we thought was an inalienable right and what isn't an inalienable right. And, here lately, they're clearly getting to the point of not giving a shit what's a Constitutional right established through Constitutional law...either.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

I honestly believe 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended me to have the same type of guns available to me that the government has available to it.

That was before we developed nuclear weapons I do believe. You will NEVER have the firepower the military has...never.

It isn't a matter of having the firepower the military has. Additionally, I don't think the government is going to resort to employing the use of nuclear weapons on its own people, unless they're planning on destroying themselves in the process. Duh!

And, most normal citizens during the Revolutionary War didn't have cannons, sea vessels, Gatling Guns and other such stuff like the military had...either.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

I honestly believe 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended me to have the same type of guns available to me that the government has available to it.

Your belief is incorrect.

Not because you say so though...right?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

No, it does not. But you are certainly free to believe it does.

You can stomp your feet and say 'NUH UHN!', but that isn't a very strong argument.


ROTFL

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Really? Show us where the courts disagree with his position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the military is made up of We the People, and We the People think the far right, the far left, and the libertarian wings are crazy in principle. We the People will not support the crazy wings.

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

And we wonder why you continue to assume that the military would back the government instead of the people.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the ******* thing.

Which is why the courts have held that an outright general ban is unconstitutional. However, the courts have never held that regulating gun ownership or use constitutes an infringement of that right. In fact, the courts have consistently held that it is the proper role of the state to do precisely that and to even institute an outright ban for certain members of the "people". Your beliefs to the contrary, while very nice for you, are irrelevant.

Who gives a shit what the courts have or haven't held? They're just as ******* clueless as you are.